The Gisborne Herald. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED “THE TIMES.” GISBORNE, THURSDAY, OCT. 5, 1930. BRITISH WAR POLICY

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20060, 5 October 1939, Page 4

The Gisborne Herald. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED “THE TIMES.” GISBORNE, THURSDAY, OCT. 5, 1930. BRITISH WAR POLICY

This week’s discussion in the House of Commons on the possibility of pence proposals being advanced by, or on behalf of Germany served to confirm earlier impressions of the solidarity of British opinion against any surrender to the forces of aggression. Whatever form Herr Hitler’s “peace offensive” may take it will not result in the Allies accepting an offensive peace. Mr. Chamberlain, in the Commons, and Viscount Halifax, in the House of Lords, both made it plain that there had not been the slightest departure from the policy enunciated when Britain decided that the Nazi challenge should be accepted. After all, this attitude is not one of i sheer obstinacy, but is largely governed by plain common sense. The fundamental cause of the war, as the Prime Minister expressed it, is that the nations of Europe were faced with the alternatives of jeopardising their freedom or mobilising their forces at regular intervals to defend it. To accept peace now would not ensure freedom, but would merely give the aggressor a breathing space in which to prepare for the next excursion. In such circumstances the world would remain an armed camp indefinitely, with national efforts directed to armaments instead of the well-being of their peoples, and no one knowing where the next blow would fall. These conditions would be more intolerable than war itself, and, for that reason, the war must go on. Mr. Chamberlain’s reference to the Russian - German declaration was necessarily vague, since the declaration itself was obscure, but he was able to say that a so-called peace proposal that was accompanied by a thinly-veiled threat would never induce Britain or France to abandon the struggle. This method, as he pointed out, was typical of the German—and now, It seems, also the Russian—war technique. The Nazis avoided war with Austria and Czechoslovakia by issuing threats of war in the guise of peace proposals, and in these instances the threats succeeded. Now Russia appears to be resorting to similar methods in order to extend her in' fluence in the Baltic and possibly the Balkans. There could be no greater mistake, however, than to assume that these tactics could succeed with Britain and France, in particular, and there is some evidence to suggest that both Italy and Turkey are resisting the pressure of the dictators. There is special significance in to-day’s report that Signor Mussolini has declined to take the initiative in peace negotiations, and this, indeed, may be the forerunner of a general stand by the Powers of Europe against the threats and threatened domination of aggressor States; it is possible that the principle of collective security may be established as a result of the threats that are now being made.

An important aspect of the House of Commons debate was the disclosure of the complete unanimity of ali parties. The Leader of the Opposition, while prepared to examine every kind of peace proposal, welcomed the assurance that Britain and France would stand firm for a real peace and for the refusal of a sham peace. He, too, realised that peace under the present conditions would be no peace at all. The Liberal leader took a similar view. They were not, he said, prepared to buy peace at the sacrifice of freedom and the moral value of civilisation. It was essential to go on with the war until Hilterism was broken. What other view can be taken? How is it possible to negotiate in any way, on any subject, with a man whose word and whose bond have proved equally valueless? No pledge that Hitler gave could possibly be relied upon, and this plain fact justified Mr. Chamberlain’s statement that “no mere assurances from the present German Government could be accepted, for that Government too often has proved in the past that its undertakings are worthless when it suits it that they should be broken.” This disregard of pledges is the direct cause of the present war, and until the cause has been removed it must be obvious that there can be no lasting or honourable peace. It would be surprising if, in a Parliament of more than 600 members, there were not one or two dissentient voices. It is significant, however, that even the five or six pacifists in the House of Commons had little to say by way of criticism of thd Government’s policy. One Independent Labour member questioned the unanimous desire of the masses of the people for a continuation of the war, but his view was countered by one of his . own bench-mates who pointed out that if peace were concluded now Britain would hand Hitler more than he would have had if war had not broken out. A Conservative who wanted to know what Britain was fighting for contended that Germany had already lost through her fatal blunder in giving such power to Russia. Mr. Lloyd George, who was Prime Minister during the last war, created the impression that he was in favour of peace negotiations, but he subsequently made it clear that all that he had in mind was that peace proposals should not be rejected offhand, and added that he would be the last to advocate surrender. The real value of this debate, then, is that it served to show that the British

Parliament, which in turn speaks for the people of Great Britain, was never more united on any subject than it is in its determination to prosecute the war until the objective is achieved, and that objective, in the words of the Prime Minister, is “to secure that the rule of violence shall cease and that the word of Governments, once pledged, must henceforth he kept.”